Abstract
Although Machiavelli tells us at the beginning of the Discourses that he is intent upon charting a new path in political speculation, and although he certainly carries out that intention, in another sense he is perpetuating the tradition of inquiry begun by Plato, the founder of western political theory. It is Plato who, in the Republic, espouses the macroanthropological principle and makes the human psyche rather than the visible heavens the basis of an ordered polity. The interpenetration of psyche and society is a leading theme for both men. The decisive difference between these great thinkers results from the fact that Plato begins his analysis with the ordered psyche of the philosopher open to the experience of the world-transcendent ground and works his way down to the psychology of the demos, while Machiavelli begins with the psychology of the demos and works his way up to a vision of the order-giving psyche of the heroic individual possessed of virtu. Machia-velli’s ascent is only partial, however. His analysis moves within the sphere of immanent existence; the problem of man’s relation to Being is bracketed in favor of considering his precarious foothold in the stream of becoming.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Letter to Piero Soderini of January, 1513, in Niccolo Machiavelli, Opere, A. Panella, ed., 2 vols, Milan-Rome, Rizzoli, 1939, vol.2, pp. 779–782 at 780; Il Principe, XVIII; Opere, vol. 2, p. 66. All citations to the Italian text are from this edition. In this letter Machiavelli searches for lessons to be learned from the tumultuous events of the preceding four months. In September, 1512, the Florentine Republic came to an end. Soderini, the Gonfalonier, was deposed and banished. With the return of the Medici to power, Machiavelli lost his position as Chancellor and Secretary to the Dieci di Libertà e Pace, to which
Il Principe, XV; Opere, Vol. 2, p. 57. (Hereinafter it will be assumed that I refer to Volume II unless otherwise indicated.)
It is not certain Machiavelli had in mind Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas in his reference to those who “imagine principalities and republics” or contemporaries such as Erasmus who wrote what he would certainly have regarded as “utopian” tracts. We do not know whether he was familiar with Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, published in 1516. Cf. L. K. Born, “Erasmus on Political Ethics,” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1928, pp. 522–543. In his Discourse on Reforming the State of Florence, Machiavelli refers favorably to Plato and Aristotle as writers who, if unable to institute a republic “in actuality, did so in writing.” If they did not have the occasion to found a republic like Solon or Lycurgus, “the fault is not in their ignorance but in their lacking the power to put it into effect.” Opere, 748. In other words, their goals were practically attainable.
Discorsi, vol. I, p. 25; Opere, p. 169.
Discorsi, vol. 1, p. 58; Ibid., p. 236.
Il Principe, p. XVII; Opere, p. 62.
Ibid.
Discorsi, I, 3; Opere, p. 113. Machiavelli generally uses animo (mind) rather than anima (soul) in his political writings. The place of anima in his psychology is difficult to determine. One of his more dramatic references to anima is in his letter of April 16, 1527 to Francesco Vettori: “Io amo messer Francesco Giucciardini, amo la patria mia piú dell’ anima.” (I love Francesco Giucciardini, I love my country more than the soul.) Opere, p. 847.
Ibid., I, 9; Opere, p. 132. Both of these passages concern the “malignity” of rulers rather than that of the common man. Republican institutions and the rule of law are necessary to check their lust for dominion.
Discorsi, Preface to Book I; Opere, p. 102.
Letter to Soderini, Opere, p. 781.
Cf. my discussion of Dorso’s psychology in Beyond Ideology, New York, 1967, pp. 123, ff.
Discorsi, I, 37; Opere, p. 190.
Ibid.
Discorsi, II, 27; Opere, p. 332.
Dell’ Arte della Guerra, IV (end); Opere, p. 588. (“L’amore della patria e causato dalla natura…”)
Discorsi, III, 7, 19, 20.
Discorsi, I, 3; Opere, p. 114. “Necessity ordered by law” is also a major theme of the very initial chapter of the Discourses (I, 1).
Dell’ Arte della Guerra, I; Opere, p. 480.
Discorsi, III, 29; Opere, p. 431.
L’Asino D’Oro, Chapter 8; Opere, I, p. 848. Translation by A. H. Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works, 3 vols; Durham, North Carolina, 1965, II, 772.
Fear is a leading theme in Machiavelli’s analysis. In part the socialization process involves substituting political and religious fear for the primordial terror that accompanies the unorganized existential situation. The security afforded by the well-ordered polity enables man to relegate fear to the background of the consciousness while hope and courage become the predominant impulses. Or to put it another way, fear of God and the laws, instead of leading man to destructive and fratricidal anomie, becomes the basis for courage and hope. Fear need not defeat, but can nourish hope under the proper conditions. Cf. inter alia, Dell’ Arte della Guerra, VI; Opere, pp. 631, 655, 661.
Discorso o dialogo intorno alla nostra lingua, Opere, I, pp. 713–727 at 713; translation by J. R. Hale, The Literary Works of Machiavelli London, 1961, pp. 175–190 at 175.
Discorsi, I, 4; I, 7; Opere 115, 125–127. See also I, 39; Opere, 196.
Discorsi, I, 40; Opere, 204: “perché gli uomini, come diceva il re Ferdinando, spesso fanno come certi minori uccelli di rapina...che non sentono uno altro maggiore uccello che sia loro sopra per anmazzarli.”
See the relevant portions of Eric Voegelin’s article: “Machiavelli’s Prince. Background and Formation”, Review of Politics, Vol. XIII, pp. 142–168 for an illuminating discussion of the heroic character type as envisaged by Machiavelli.
“Virtue in the highest sense, extraordinary virtue, grandeur of mind and will, the pre-moral or trans-moral quality which distinguishes the great men from the rest of mankind, is a gift of nature. Such virtue, which is not chosen, compels a man to set himself high goals,” Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, Glencoe, Illinois, 1953, p. 247. Strauss cites in particular Discourses III, 12 (beginning) as support for his conclusion. Despite this sometimes too generous assumptions and his hypermoralistic insistence on the evil’ character of Machiavelli’s teaching, there is much of value in Strauss’s analysis. See, how-ever, C. J. Friedrich’s trenchant review of Strauss in the New Leader, 1965, for a needed corrective. Friedrich discusses Machiavelli’s conception of “founding a political order” in his magisterial chapter of the same title in Man and His Government (New York, 1963), pp. 389–405.
Discorsi I, 9; Opere, pp. 131, 133 (end). Vide the discussion of Machiavelli and the “end justifies the means” in my article, “Second Thoughts on Leo Strauss’s Machiavelli” in: The Journal of Politics, August 1966, pp. 794–817 at pp. 803–807. Most importantly, the reader should consult C. J. Friedrich’s definitive work, Constitutional Reason of State, Providence, R. I. Brown University Press, 1957, especially pp. 23–29.
Discorsi, I, 10; Opere, p. 137.
Discorsi I, 16; Opere, p. 153.
Strauss, op. cit.: “...once one grasps the intransigent character of Machiavellis’ theoretical concern, one is no longer compelled to burden him with the full responsibility for that practical recklessness which he frequently recommends.” And again: “...Some of the most outrageous statements of the Prince are not meant seriously but serve a merely pedagogic function; as soon as one understands them, one sees that they are amusing and meant to amuse,” p. 32.
Joseph Anthony Mazzeo, Renaissance and Seventeenth-Century Studies, New York, 1964, p. 165.
Il Principe, 13; Opere, p. 65.
Letter to Soderini of January, 1513; Opere, pp. 781–782.
Discorsi, I, 11; Opere, p. 139.
Ibid., p. 140.
Discorsi, Dedication; Opere, p. 100.
Discorsi, I (Preface); Opere, p. 101.
Discorsi, II, 5; Opere, p. 265.
Discorsi, III, 1 and Istorie Fiorentine, V, 1; Opere, vol. 1, p. 348 and II, 280.
Discorsi, III, 22; Opere, p. 418.
Discorsi, III, 1; Opere, p. 348.
Discorsi, III, 31; Opere, p. 436.
Neal Wood, Machiavelli,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 9, PP. 505–511 at p. 511.
Mazzeo, op. cit., pp. 135, 136 (note). As is clear, particularly in Freud’s essay, The Future of an Illusion, there is an Enlightenment strand in Freud’s thought, so that Wood’s and Mazzeo’s interpretations of Machiavelli are not so opposed to each other as they would appear to be on the surface. Cf. Paul Roazen, Freud: Political and Social Thought, New York, 1968, p. 159 and passim. Even so, Machiavelli remains Machiavelli and his political thought differs in many important respects from that of either Freud or the Enlightenment.
Cf. Z. S. Fink, The Classical Republicans, 2nd edition, Evanston, Illinois, 1962;
Charles Blitzer, ed., The Political Writings of James Harrington, New York, 1955, pp. 31 ff., 133, ff. and passim. Although not strictly speaking a classical republican, Rousseau has profound affinities with this tradition and cites Machiavelli frequently in the Contrat Social.
“An Empirical Theory of Politics” is the subtitle to Carl J. Friedrich’s major work, Man and His Government, New York, 1963.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Germino, D. (1971). Machiavelli’s Political Anthropology. In: von Beyme, K. (eds) Theory and Politics / Theorie und Politik. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1063-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1063-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0429-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1063-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive